This Decision considers an Appeal of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued on August 25, 2010, involving a Complaint of Retaliation filed by Arun K. Dutta (Mr. Dutta or the complainant) under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. In his Complaint, Mr. Dutta alleged that his former employer, Parsons Infrastructure and Technology Group, Inc. (Parsons or the contractor), retaliated against him for engaging in activity protected under Part 708. In the IAD, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) Hearing Officer determined that Mr.

This Decision considers an Appeal of an Initial Agency Decision (IAD) issued on January 6, 2011, involving a complaint of retaliation filed by Mary S. Ravage (“Ravage” or “Complainant”) under the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. In her complaint of retaliation (hereinafter “the Complaint”), Ravage alleged that her former employer, Medcor, Inc. (Medcor), retaliated against her for making a protected disclosure under Part 708 regarding an alleged incident where a fellow employee slapped another fellow employee on the arm.

Gennady Ozeryansky (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) appeals the dismissal of his complaint of retaliation and request for investigation filed under 10 C.F.R. Part 708,the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Employee Protection Program. As explained below, the Appeal should be dismissed without prejudice and the matter should be remanded for further processing.

This Initial Agency Decision involves a Complaint of Retaliation filed by Hansford F. Johnson against B&W Pantex LLC (B&W) under the DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program and its governing regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 708. The complainant was an employee of B&W, the firm employed by DOE to manage and operate the Pantex Plant, where he was employed as a Program Manager, working as the plant energy manager until he retired on March 24, 2010. Mr.

This Decision concerns a Complaint filed by Colleen Monk (hereinafter referred to as “Ms. Monk” or “the Complainant”) against Washington TRU Solutions, VJ Technologies, and Mobile Characterization Services (hereinafter referred to individually as “WTS,” “VJT,” and “MCS,” respectively, or collectively as “the Respondents”), under the Department of Energy’s (DOE)Contractor Employee Protection Program regulations found at 10 C.F.R. Part 708. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondents were DOE contractors operating in Los Alamos, New